Of course not.
2. USSC has already ruled offensive speech is protected.
Not under all circumstances. The concept of "fighting words" has been accepted for some time and court rulings have found that such speech isn't protected. And there is precedent that indicates that language designed to inflict severe emotional distress is not protected either. You think the university will have a problem digging up a few dozen people who claim emotional distress from this?
3. Its discriminatory application of those standards based on race.
Nonsense. It's discrimination against bigots who, last time I checked, are not a legally protected class.
So if I cause “severe emotional distress” to homosexuals by opposing gay marriage, to jihadists by saying “kill them all”, to whites by calling them crackers, to illegals by calling them illegals (you get my drift) then my speech is actionable by state actors?
You need to think this through a bit amigo. The answer to speech you don’t like is speech you do like. The whole notion of “hate speech” is an affront to the First Amendment and freedom. Actions should be actionable not speech.
As far as emotional distress goes that was rejected by the supreme court in flag burning cases. There is no right to not be offended, if there was lefties would be in prison from the offensive speech they have been doing for decades.
Fighting words require physical presence.
It was private property off campus and protected under freedom of speech and freedom of association.
Here is you race card back, its been canceled do to overuse.